New Army Training Tells Female Soldiers To ‘Accept’ Naked Men In Their Showers

[INVAR]

Insanity on a scale that should frighten you.

You think this Army is ready to take on the Russkies, the Chinese or the NORKS?

Our military has been fundamentally transformed into a force that our enemies can simply destroy by merely making fun of them.

New Army Training Tells Female Soldiers To ‘Accept’ Naked Men In Their Showers

...I recently received a copy of the new “Tier Three Transgender Training” materials—a PowerPoint and accompanying lesson plan excerpted below, with full documents at these links—that the Army is now using in mandatory training for all soldiers. ..




...under the policy, a male infantryman who cannot meet the bare minimum requirement of 42 pushups and is therefore considered a liability in combat can switch his “gender marker” to female and suddenly be qualified. Even though he retains the exact same physical characteristics, and can do only 19 push-ups, he will now be a combat-ready female infantry soldier, eligible to hold the exact same role in his former unit.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Hadn't thought of that angle.  Because physical standards for males/females are different, it's an easy out for out of shape males who cannot meet the male physical standards.

[driftdiver]

Hadn't thought of that angle.  Because physical standards for males/females are different, it's an easy out for out of shape males who cannot meet the male physical standards.

It also lets them into the female showers apparently.  Not that any 19 year old guy has ever considered that.   

[240B]

It also lets them into the female showers apparently.  Not that any 19 year old guy has ever considered that.

If I had to go back in the Army today, I would definitely be a female. I would be a 6'3, built, hairy, freakin' lesbian with a raging boner.
It would be a blast!


Light PT
Shower with the girls
Sleep with the girls in the female tent. Not that I would get much 'sleep'.


A tour in the Army would be more like going on a sex cruise.

[RoosGirl]

Again, how many months does it take Sec. Mattis to reverse these ridiculous policies?  So much for the "Mad Dog" no nonsense guy we were told he was.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Again, how many months does it take Sec. Mattis to reverse these ridiculous policies?  So much for the "Mad Dog" no nonsense guy we were told he was.

Well, he just "delayed" them for 6 months.

Here's what I think is going on -- when he was confirmed, he was specifically asked if he had any plans to rollback things like women in combat, and his response was "I have no plan to do so, that is currently the policy."  I think he knew that if he answered it differently, he might not get confirmed.

So, what he is waiting for is requests from his Service Chiefs to undue that stuff.  Because if the requests come from them, he's then got room to change policy and say that he's doing it because the facts on the ground have changed from when he was confirmed.  What is going on now is that new data is being acquired that will lead to those requests, which will then lead to a reversal/alteration of the policies. That's probably how they think it must be done so as not to create too much of a political firestorm.

[RoosGirl]

Well, he just "delayed" them for 6 months.

Here's what I think is going on -- when he was confirmed, he was specifically asked if he had any plans to rollback things like women in combat, and his response was "I have no plan to do so, that is currently the policy."  I think he knew that if he answered it differently, he might not get confirmed.

So, what he is waiting for is requests from his Service Chiefs to undue that stuff.  Because if the requests come from them, he's then got room to change policy and say that he's doing it because the facts on the ground have changed from when he was confirmed.  What is going on now is that new data is being acquired that will lead to those requests, which will then lead to a reversal/alteration of the policies. That's probably how they think it must be done so as not to create too much of a political firestorm.

I saw that he delayed the transgender rules for *new* entries, but current transgender troops are still being catered to, allowed to transition, etc.  We'll see what happens I guess.

[240B]

By issuing this directive, female members in the military must know that they can no longer trust their chain of command concerning men in the female quarters. I think a likely outcome of this is that women will begin showering/sleeping wearing loose shorts and a top of some kind.


I simply can't see women getting naked and doing private female stuff with men in the room. The women will find a way to cover themselves no matter what the man says his gender is.

[sneakypete]

....under the policy, a male infantryman who cannot meet the bare minimum requirement of 42 pushups and is therefore considered a liability in combat can switch his “gender marker” to female and suddenly be qualified. Even though he retains the exact same physical characteristics, and can do only 19 push-ups, he will now be a combat-ready female infantry soldier, eligible to hold the exact same role in his former unit.

That's just the camel's nose under the tent. Once he is designated as a transgender "infantryperson" he/she/it/multiple choice is in a prime position to sue the army for discrimination if he/she/it/multiple-choice isn't promoted ahead of everyone else and given more responsible positions. Like staff positions,for example,where there is no danger,no dirt,no cold meals,and promotions ahead of everyone else.

We will eventually end up with staff running battle plans that have never been in a battle.

[sneakypete]

Again, how many months does it take Sec. Mattis to reverse these ridiculous policies?  So much for the "Mad Dog" no nonsense guy we were told he was.

@RoosGirl

He can't. It's Congress that makes those decisions.

[RoosGirl]

@RoosGirl

He can't. It's Congress that makes those decisions.

@sneakypete

So he can delay the rules from taking effect, but can't change them?  You may be right, but I don't think that's correct.  I'm pretty sure I read elsewhere that it was the previous Sec of Def that put these new rules into play?

This is from a CNN article:

In 2016, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter ended the ban on transgender people being able to serve openly in the military, but he said the process would occur in stages.
Mattis was facing a July 1 deadline for deciding on transgender recruits.
Last week, leaders from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps submitted a request to delay the July 1 deadline to decide whether incoming service members already identifying as transgender could enlist if they have been "stable" in their gender identity for 18 months.
Many Republicans in Congress are opposed to allowing transgender people to serve. An amendment that would have prevented transgender people from doing so was debated during Wednesday's markup of the House's defense authorization bill. The sponsor, Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, said she would wait to see what the Pentagon did before moving forward with her provision.

The Defense authorization bill typically only sets budgets, so I think Rep Hartzler's amendment would be Congress's first attempt to exclude transgender.  I mean, it doesn't make sense to introduce this now if it 2016 they passed a bill that allowed it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@RoosGirl

He can't. It's Congress that makes those decisions.

Congress has said nothing about transgender troops -- the law is the same as it has always been.  The policy change came from President Obama through the civilian Secretaries, and could be reversed the same way.

I just think that they want to minimize the political firestorm by building a "case" for reversing some of those changes before actually doing so.  It will be infinitely easier for Mattis, et al, to say "we tried it, and this is what we found", rather than being accused of simply speculating as to future problems.

Maybe I'm wrong, and giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt.  But I recall back when the women in combat thing first started, and the Marines were the first to come up with integration plans and testing.   People accused them of selling out, but in fact, they were just building a case so that when it came time to recommend against it, they'd have solid facts.  And as it turned out, the Marines were the only branch to formally request that they not be required to integrate women, and then offered their studies as evidence.  Mabus overruled the objection, but the Corps' leadership strategy of appearing to give the idea a chance before rejecting it was sound.

Frankly, I think the best time to do that again would be next summer -- make it an election issue as to whether or not Democrats will openly oppose a recommendation from the very popular SecDef based on evidence.  Trust me, Mattis will have all his ducks lined up.  They'll have stats for the costs of transgender troops, number of missed days/deployments, medical issues, etc..  And he'll lay out a compelling factual case why it is a tremendous waste of resources.  Then let Dems running for Congress try to make trannies in the Marines (and elsewhere) the issue on which they want to hang their hats.

That is much less popular with most Americans than it is with the fringe.

[bolobaby]

If I had to go back in the Army today, I would definitely be a female. I would be a 6'3, built, hairy, freakin' lesbian with a raging boner.
It would be a blast!


Light PT
Shower with the girls
Sleep with the girls in the female tent. Not that I would get much 'sleep'.


A tour in the Army would be more like going on a sex cruise.

@240B

All that pre-op lesbian sex you would be having...!

[driftdiver]

So he can delay the rules from taking effect, but can't change them?  You may be right, but I don't think that's correct.  I'm pretty sure I read elsewhere that it was the previous Sec of Def that put these new rules into play?

I think it depends on what Congress wants.   He can probably change the rules but Congress can veto if they don't like it.   Just like the prior Sec of Defense changed them and Congress decided to play along.

[XenaLee]

Insanity on a scale that should frighten you.

You think this Army is ready to take on the Russkies, the Chinese or the NORKS?

Our military has been fundamentally transformed into a force that our enemies can simply destroy by merely making fun of them.

That is probably THE stupidest leftist policy I have seen.... ever.   I wonder if Trump is going to reverse this particular lunacy.   Talk about destroying military morale..... this is nuts

[XenaLee]

Well, he just "delayed" them for 6 months.

Here's what I think is going on -- when he was confirmed, he was specifically asked if he had any plans to rollback things like women in combat, and his response was "I have no plan to do so, that is currently the policy."  I think he knew that if he answered it differently, he might not get confirmed.

So, what he is waiting for is requests from his Service Chiefs to undue that stuff.  Because if the requests come from them, he's then got room to change policy and say that he's doing it because the facts on the ground have changed from when he was confirmed.  What is going on now is that new data is being acquired that will lead to those requests, which will then lead to a reversal/alteration of the policies. That's probably how they think it must be done so as not to create too much of a political firestorm.

Who cares if it creates a firestorm?   The nations' national security is at stake.

[driftdiver]

Who cares if it creates a firestorm?   The nations' national security is at stake.

Because politics are necessary in the military getting the funding it needs.   Piss off a democrat and they might see $$ for tank parts disappear.

The primary constituents of the demonrats hate the military.   I've talked to some that think all military men are rapists.   They think our military spending should be $0 because we can just all hug and be friends.

[RoosGirl]

Congress has said nothing about transgender troops -- the law is the same as it has always been.  The policy change came from President Obama through the civilian Secretaries, and could be reversed the same way.

I just think that they want to minimize the political firestorm by building a "case" for reversing some of those changes before actually doing so.  It will be infinitely easier for Mattis, et al, to say "we tried it, and this is what we found", rather than being accused of simply speculating as to future problems.

Maybe I'm wrong, and giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt.  But I recall back when the women in combat thing first started, and the Marines were the first to come up with integration plans and testing.   People accused them of selling out, but in fact, they were just building a case so that when it came time to recommend against it, they'd have solid facts.  And as it turned out, the Marines were the only branch to formally request that they not be required to integrate women, and then offered their studies as evidence.  Mabus overruled the objection, but the Corps' leadership strategy of appearing to give the idea a chance before rejecting it was sound.

Frankly, I think the best time to do that again would be next summer -- make it an election issue as to whether or not Democrats will openly oppose a recommendation from the very popular SecDef based on evidence.  Trust me, Mattis will have all his ducks lined up.  They'll have stats for the costs of transgender troops, number of missed days/deployments, medical issues, etc..  And he'll lay out a compelling factual case why it is a tremendous waste of resources.  Then let Dems running for Congress try to make trannies in the Marines (and elsewhere) the issue on which they want to hang their hats.

That is much less popular with most Americans than it is with the fringe.

I hope you are right and this will be the eventual outcome.  In the meantime I hate the thought of one dime of our money going to support this craziness.

[XenaLee]

Because politics are necessary in the military getting the funding it needs.   Piss off a democrat and they might see $$ for tank parts disappear.

The primary constituents of the demonrats hate the military.   I've talked to some that think all military men are rapists.   They think our military spending should be $0 because we can just all hug and be friends.

Point taken.

[INVAR]

Because politics are necessary in the military getting the funding it needs.   Piss off a democrat and they might see $$ for tank parts disappear.

The primary constituents of the demonrats hate the military.   I've talked to some that think all military men are rapists.   They think our military spending should be $0 because we can just all hug and be friends.

Does not belay the fact our military is being trained in how to suck up to homosexuals and other perverts, NOT how to kill people and break things more effectively.

All this does is emasculate and tear down military readiness and cohesion - as it is INTENDED to do.

Once we get our asses royally kicked, the perverts who foisted this on the military will go on to accuse them and leadership of causing the disaster - not the policies they forced the military to adopt that do nothing to prepare our fighting forces to wage war.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think it depends on what Congress wants.   He can probably change the rules but Congress can veto if they don't like it.   Just like the prior Sec of Defense changed them and Congress decided to play along.

Congress can't veto anything.  Congress would have to pass a brand new law forcing transgender enlistments, that would have to be signed by the President.  There's no way that's happening unless/until Democrats control both chambers and the Presidency.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

So he can delay the rules from taking effect, but can't change them?  You may be right, but I don't think that's correct.  I'm pretty sure I read elsewhere that it was the previous Sec of Def that put these new rules into play?

This is from a CNN article:

The Defense authorization bill typically only sets budgets, so I think Rep Hartzler's amendment would be Congress's first attempt to exclude transgender.  I mean, it doesn't make sense to introduce this now if it 2016 they passed a bill that allowed it.

@RoosGirl

MY understanding is that various branches of government can make and  enforce regulations within their own kingdoms,but only Congress can make laws.

This is especially true of the US Military.  It has to be that way to preserve a free nation. Congress says "Do it!" and the Generals and Admirals only salute and say "Yes Sir! Right away,Sir!"

[Maj. Bill Martin]

NP